1 CGHC010028602023 2026:CGHC:38380 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 652 of 2023 1 - Devashish Rai S/o Dinbandhu Rai Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Pakhanjur, New Market Ward No. 15, Ambedkar Ward, Post Office Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food And Civil Supplies Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The State Information Commission Sector 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The First Appellate Authority And Assistant Food Officer District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Public Information Officer Government Fair Price Shop, Jayshrinagar, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the order dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 4 to supply the information sought by the petitioner as per order of first appellate authority dated 23.10.2021.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 is the State and respondents No. 2 to 4 are instrumentalities of the State and, therefore, fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted that on 05.07.2021, the petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer, seeking certain documents, including the cash book for the period from 01.03.2018 to 01.03.2021 and the expenditure vouchers pertaining to Government Fair Price Shop, Jayshrinagar, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.). As the information sought was not supplied by respondent No. 4, the petitioner preferred a first 3 appeal before respondent No. 3, the First Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 23.10.2021, respondent No. 3 directed respondent No. 4 to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within one week, without charging any cost. However, despite the aforesaid direction, respondent No. 4 failed to furnish the requisite information, compelling the petitioner to prefer a second appeal before respondent No. 2. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No. 2, vide the impugned order dated 14.09.2022, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, passed an ex parte order setting aside the order dated 23.10.2021 on the ground that the cash book was not maintained by the Government Fair Price Shop. It is contended that the said finding is factually incorrect, as the cash book is, in fact, maintained by Government Fair Price Shop, Jayshrinagar, and, therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the material available on record and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents and other material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, further, taking into consideration the fact that the concerned authorities have passed a reasoned and speaking order upon due consideration of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out warranting interference with the impugned order dated 14.09.2022 passed by respondent No. 2. The findings recorded therein do not suffer from any apparent illegality, perversity or infirmity so as to call for interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat